Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
What do you mean?
Are you saying France (and the rest of the EU?) should not have supported the generals, who stopped the elections, when the FIS were about to win?

Earlier you wrote:


The biggests recent failure of European Middle-East policy was getting dragged into an embargo of the Palestinian Authority's democratically elected government.

Do we have support democratic governments (like Hamas) that are hostile to our allies (here: Israel) or that want to end democracy like FIS in Algeria?

by Joerg in Berlin ((joerg.wolf [AT] atlanticreview.org)) on Thu Sep 14th, 2006 at 07:08:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying.

If we supported the Algerian coup, what right did we have to feel shock and horror at the brutal civil war that ensued?

And what right do we have now to feel shock and horror at Israel arresting PA parlamentarians and cabinet members, and reports that the Gaza economy has completely collapsed and people are fishing for scraps of food in garbage dumps?

You can't have your cake and eat it, too.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Sep 14th, 2006 at 07:12:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Are you seriously suggesting that the correct policy for the EU is to ignore the results of democracy if we don't like it? Is that to be the foundation of our foreign policy? Are you seriously suggesting that the correct approach to the election of Hamas was to say "silly children, you voted wrong"?  
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Thu Sep 14th, 2006 at 07:13:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, that's the US "promotion of Democracy™" policy, so it must be the right approach.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Sep 14th, 2006 at 07:14:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]
What I am saying is that we neither have nor should always send millions (billions?) of Euros to the Palestinian Authority no matter who is running it and no matter what their goals are.

Talking to Hamas: Fine.
Sending them money: Not unless they recognize Israel etc

by Joerg in Berlin ((joerg.wolf [AT] atlanticreview.org)) on Thu Sep 14th, 2006 at 07:21:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]
And I presume that Israel also shouldn't get aid?
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Thu Sep 14th, 2006 at 07:23:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Oh, no, they're democratic and committed to the viability of the Palestinian Authority.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Sep 14th, 2006 at 07:24:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
We would not be sending money to Hamas, we'd be sending money to the Palestinian Authority. Or are you saying that my 5 years of taxes in the US went to the Republican Party?

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Sep 14th, 2006 at 07:23:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]
What I would like to discuss is: How do defeat the beast?

Are you saying that sending money to the Hamas government and/or stop sending money to Israel would reduce the risk of terrorism to us?

I doubt that would help us.

by Joerg in Berlin ((joerg.wolf [AT] atlanticreview.org)) on Thu Sep 14th, 2006 at 07:50:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Contributing to a humanitarian crisis in Gaza sure helps.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Sep 14th, 2006 at 07:53:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It would have several effects:

  • It would reduce the pitiable state of the Palestinian people. Ideally it would make the Palestinians better off than most Arabs, thus reducing the utility of the Palestinian issue for extremists. That speech about your poor Palestinian brothers doesn't work so well if they live better than you do.

  • It would reduce the anger and hopelessness of the Palestinians. One of the reasons that the peace-process in Northern Ireland was possible was that the UK government pumped loads of money into people's pockets. People with nothing to lose have no reason to come to an agreement.

  • It would show that we respected the democratic process in fact rather than in principle. It would help make our talk about democracy believable rather than a running joke.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Thu Sep 14th, 2006 at 07:56:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It would reduce the pitiable state of the Palestinian people.

Europe has sent billions to the Palestinians in the last couple of years and it did not change!

Hamas may be less corrupt right now, but I am not sure they would spend that money on development.

by Joerg in Berlin ((joerg.wolf [AT] atlanticreview.org)) on Thu Sep 14th, 2006 at 09:24:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I meant decades.
by Joerg in Berlin ((joerg.wolf [AT] atlanticreview.org)) on Thu Sep 14th, 2006 at 09:25:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Decades? The PA has not been in existence for multiple decades.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Thu Sep 14th, 2006 at 09:29:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Europe has sent billions to the Palestinians in the last couple of years and it did not change!

You forget that in the meantime, Israel destroyed property worth billions (including civilian and police buildings financed by that EU money), and keeps the occupied areas under an almost total blockade that also ruins the economy.

Hamas may be less corrupt right now, but I am not sure they would spend that money on development.

There are controls on that money.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Thu Sep 14th, 2006 at 09:28:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It would reduce the pitiable state of the Palestinian people.

Europe has sent billions to the Palestinians in the last couple of years and it did not change!

Well, Israel kept destroying the infrastructure built with the EU's money.

In addition, as long as Gaza was under occupation there was no chance of the economy improving.

How long of a respite did Gaza get between Sharon's disengagement and Hamas' election victory?

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Sep 14th, 2006 at 09:28:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Sure, but Israel destroying the infrastructure is hardly the only thing that prevents the Palestinians from developing their economy.

Lebanon has been more successful developing their economy in the 90s than Palestine was in the 90s.

What drives me nuts is this constant focus on the US and Israel.
Why do you focus on them?

I never said that the US or Israel are not creating problems. But they are not the only ones to blame for the misery in the Arab world. I am sure you agree. However, in most of your comments, Migeru and Colman and others, you bring up US and Israeli wrong doings. If I may be frank: That is boring.

Can we also talk about Europe's faults and what Europe could do better?

by Joerg in Berlin ((joerg.wolf [AT] atlanticreview.org)) on Thu Sep 14th, 2006 at 09:35:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The first thing that prevents the Palestinian from developing their economy is the fact that they are under military occupation, and destruction of infrastructure is a pretty big stumbling block.

On Gaza, the EU has been extremely engaged, and provided lots of financial and diplomatic support. Remember the Madrid summit and the Oslo agreements? It so happens that, on Gaza, Israel plays a major role. It also happens that the US does too. I don't focus on them, but they're part of the picture, and not exactly in the background either. I have brought up what I think the EU has and has not done, as has DoDo.

I have also given some of my opinion of what Europe does and should do, and its failures. You chose to react to an afterthought mention of UNIFIL, and to the issue of the Mohammed Cartoons. How about

Europe is trying to engage everyone in the Middle East instead of lecturing countries and peoples about values and democracy, endorsing war and occupation, or getting involved in an escalation of diplomatic snubs. The biggests recent failure of European Middle-East policy was getting dragged into an embargo of the Palestinian Authority's democratically elected government.

...

There is also the Alliance of Civilisations sponsored by Annan, Erdogan and Zapatero.

How's the Euromediterranean Partnership doing? I don't really know, I should read everything under that link.

The fact is, the US' middle-east policy is a big part of the problem. What is the Eu doing about it? Rolling over, containment, maybe stalling with the Iranians so Bush doesn't have a clear opening for another war.

Good things, bad things, and what should be done.

Seriously, Spain was the only EU country to send its foreign minister to Syria during the Lebanon crisis. Things are being done on the diplomatic level. It takes time. I am getting bored with you coming in and screaming "WHAT SHOULD EUROPE DO?" "WHAT IS EUROPE DOING?"

Then again, "Europe" is not monolithhic. One of the problems is that it is actually hard to formulate 1) what is Europe's interest; 2) what is Europe actually doing as a unit [never mind which of the various definitions of "Europe" to use].

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Sep 14th, 2006 at 09:48:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]
In addition, when I complain that Europe tacitly supported the Algerian military's suspension of the electoral process, your position seems to be that it was fine (what else could we have done?) and that the civil war and its hundreds of thousands of dead and exiled in the 1990's was an acceptable detour on the road to democratisation since the end result has been free elections with no strong islamist parties in the last 5 years.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Sep 14th, 2006 at 10:25:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Sure, but Israel destroying the infrastructure is hardly the only thing that prevents the Palestinians from developing their economy.

Nobody said it was.

What drives me nuts is this constant focus on the US and Israel.

Because they're part of the problem. And when the topic under discussion is, as it often is, the Israeli-Arab conflict it's sort of hard to avoid them.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Thu Sep 14th, 2006 at 09:53:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Sure, but Israel destroying the infrastructure is hardly the only thing that prevents the Palestinians from developing their economy.

Total economic blockade, barring off farmland behind the Wall, disruption with checkpoints inside the West Bank also have something to do with it, don't you think?

Why do you focus on them?

Because they are there, and because you started your diary with Fischer bringing up the matter.

Can we also talk about Europe's faults and what Europe could do better?

I did talk about both. I think your criticism is partly justified when considering the sub-thread on the Danish cartoons controversy, but if you are interested in Europe's faults and what Europe could do better, you could have responded to my lines on integration or past terrorism in Europe or UNIFIL.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Thu Sep 14th, 2006 at 09:56:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I have a feeling we've touched all bases and we've reached the point of agreeing to disagree.

One last thought. I don't know how to "defeat the beast". It's not even clear what "the beast" is exactly, different analyses of the problem seems to be confronting a different "beast". It might not even be a "beast", it might be a "hive". And it might be a social movement.

So, when you don't know how to "defeat the beast", you should concentrate on containing it. Some people think they know enough about "the beast" to move on to the kill. I don't.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Sep 14th, 2006 at 07:57:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]
or that want to end democracy like FIS in Algeria?

Unlike those nice democratic generals?
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Thu Sep 14th, 2006 at 07:14:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Or like Musharraf in Pakistan?

There's another one that we told ourselves was "a necessary evil for the sake of stability". He said he'd call elections within 2 years, and sanctions were slapped on him. Then 9/11 came about and all he became a useful dictator.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Sep 14th, 2006 at 07:17:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I expressed myself poorly.

What happened in Algeria as far as I understand it: The generals started a bit of democratization. The people voted for FIS in the first round of elections.
The generals then ended the democratization project.

Now, after a more than a decade of war and hundreds of thousands of deaths, Algeria had elections, that were considered not so bad. Not perfect democracy, but more free and a fair than in many other Arab countries.

by Joerg in Berlin ((joerg.wolf [AT] atlanticreview.org)) on Thu Sep 14th, 2006 at 07:24:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]
What would have washed out if the generals had gone forward with democracy in the first place?
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Thu Sep 14th, 2006 at 07:25:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]
And when the Generals ended the democratization process, Europe should have stomped its foot and put pressure on them instead of tolerating them because they're protecting us from evil islamists on our doorstep.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Sep 14th, 2006 at 07:25:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]
We don't have to support governments we don't agree with, but we have to respect the democratic process.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Sep 14th, 2006 at 07:21:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Did FIS want to end democracy?

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Thu Sep 14th, 2006 at 08:20:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It wanted to institute Sharia law.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Sep 14th, 2006 at 08:22:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I found a rather good account that more or less answers my question. The basic picture is that FIS had two important divisions: the Islamic-revival and the reform-Islam wings, and the democratic-route advocates vs. the Afghan veterans; and that by the elections, the second wing resp. the first group was in power within the party.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Thu Sep 14th, 2006 at 08:40:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It's quite possible the realities of government would have split the moderate wing from the radical wing. But we will never find out. As we will never find out what Hamas would have done had it been allowed to normally take power in the PA.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Sep 14th, 2006 at 08:41:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, as the linked account says, the 'radical wing' was effectively neutered by the elections (its two leaders were under arrest and the sole 'moderate' who remained taking over the party structure), so the question is how much the Salafists would have been allowed back into (central) power (or climbed back on their own using local power as basis) should election victory force their leaders' release.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Thu Sep 14th, 2006 at 09:08:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]
BTW, while both committed atrocities, one should make the distinction between the AIS (FIS's armed wing) and GIA (the latter was also responsible for the bombings in France).

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Thu Sep 14th, 2006 at 08:52:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series